POLL: on location - OR - on the computer

OK...Everyone needs to be nice to each other...respect is key

1. I know where my opinion stands. I just want to know what everyone thinks about each. People that have done and are GOOD at both, preferably.

2. This is not about HDR in any way. Lets not even get into that. PLEASE lol (I have nothing against it and shoot HDR if a situation presents itself)

3. Noise, IQ, scenarios in which two shooters are looking at a landscape (one with filter .3 .45 .6 .75 .9 GND etc / the other shooting two or so exposures that will be blended in CS3 etc) Obviously the scenarios will always be different so posting examples WITH 100% CROPS of your horizons (including around branches trees etc) that where blended will be key here - in my opinion for there to be any kind of victory on the side of CS3

If someone could post 2 photos for a noise comparison. 100% crops of a shot with filters and one of a multiple image blended. that would be awesome

I guess the basic question come down to IF YOU COULD master and use filters to get it correct in camera...WOULD you. OR would you still rather blend photos (takes time an "i think wouldnt be as much fun" photo wise)

Again this is not a debate over the best filter to use or which have color casts etc.
will go based on using lee...etc (square filters with holders etc)

Just for fun !!

Keeping the sky from blowing out in a landscape and using "HDR" to do it, rather than filters, is different than using "HDR" for an effect.

For me, I prefer doing it in Photoshop / Photomatix. I can't stand when images using GNDs have the horizontal banding going across some portion of the foreground that extends into the sky. Using Photoshop and masks will always be cleaner than that if you take the time to mask well. I'd always try to get it right in camera as much as possible but the horizontal banding on GNDs kills it for me.

HDR isnt an effect in my opinion, it a piece of software I have nothing against it, I have a lot of shots that I consider some of my favorites using HDR however they arent dont for an effect theyre dont to blend the three photos... hence I didnt blend them the computer did. I just tone mapped. Which is A LOT less work haha

I much prefer to try and get a shot in camera, using grads to hold back parts of a scene if required. But, if that still does not give me the image I've got in my mind, then I'm happy to fiddle in photoshop.

I don't have any HDR software, so any blending I do is done by layering and careful use of the eraser or using blending modes. I'm working on an image of Lundy right now, where the sky in the RAW file appears a solid grey. I know that I saw a much more dramatic sky than that, so I've got to recreate it after the event.

Richard

I don't have any filters, so in some situations to get the "ideal" exposure I will combine two+ exposures with masks in photoshop. I haven't bought any filters because as far as I can tell the final image is just as good if done properly in photoshop, and is much easier to experiment with the different layers. Granted this method probably takes longer, but for these kind of shots its only for my own benefit and I'm not under any pressure to complete a image so I don't mind the added time spent at the computer. It also helps that I like playing with photoshop, its seems there is always something new to learn with it.

Your choices are way to limited and there is no single answer.

First the assumption that have to use a filter to take a single image is wrong. I never use filters but often take single images.

When the shoe fits, I do multiple exposures, tone mapping, exposure blending, or HDR as needed for the image.

Obviously, I didn't vote for either.

hommedars wrote in post #5740441
Your choices are way to limited and there is no single answer.

First the assumption that have to use a filter to take a single image is wrong. I never use filters but often take single images.

When the shoe fits, I do multiple exposures, tone mapping, exposure blending, or HDR as needed for the image.

Obviously, I didn't vote for either.

? The poll is obviously geared toward situations in which you HAVE to do either... aka the difference of stops between the brightest highlight and the darkest shadow you wish to keep detail in is a lot higher than the 6-7-8 stops your camera is capable of capturing

wallybud wrote in post #5740466
? The poll is obviously geared toward situations in which you HAVE to do either... aka the difference of stops between the brightest highlight and the darkest shadow you wish to keep detail in is a lot higher than the 6-7-8 stops your camera is capable of capturing

OK, sorry, must be getting tired and didn't read your post correctly.

I voted # 2 because I hate messing with filters and have always (since film) bracketed anyway. Except for occasionally using a polarizer, I feel I can do it better and with more choices in PP. I can do things with 3 exposures that just aren't possible with one.